The saying goes that conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. It is merely an expression of different positions or interests. So why is it then that people perceive conflict in the negative? Why is it that when a conflict situation arises we feel bad about it? Where do we draw the line between being hardened against the feelings of those around us versus not providing criticism for fear that it will not be perceived as being helpful?
To complicate this scenario I refer to the team building model; forming, storming, norming, and performing. I subscribe to the notion that a team will experience each phase, and fall back a notch or two when a new team member is introduced or removed.
Some methods I’ve seen used:
- Ground rules: This is the preferred approach. It is often used for a long-term engagements yet usually don’t get appreciated as being of much worth. Ground rules can describe a host of circumstances such as being on time for meetings, sending a designate on your behalf if you cannot attend, allowing one person to speak at a time, etc.
- Coloured Cards: If a person is offending another then they can raise a red flag. There are other flag colours for expressing agreement or caution. I’ve seen coloured cards used as a subset of ground rules.
Yes there are many other tools, just refer to the PMBOK Guide 2003 edition under “Develop Project Team”.
Regardless of these tools, I often observe that it is challenging to engage the collective members in a friendly and collaborative context, not one that is perceived as being hostile. And I find the transition from friendly to hostile occurs very rapidly.
So how does one maintain positive composure? I leave off with the question - How do we ensure that all parties are working towards a common goal, and as such, able to accept conflict and criticisms that arise in pursuit of it? I suspect there is no simple answer. As always, your comments are welcomed and appreciated.
No comments:
Post a Comment